Miss K O’Callaghan v Miss M Da Silva and Others: 2403861/2017

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2403861/2017Venue CHAMBERS AT PlymouthHearing 19 September 2018 JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 38 DISMISSAL OF CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS 1. By Order of the Tribunal dated 20 June 2018 the claimant was ordered to provide further information relating to her claims, and failed to do so; and 2. By subsequent Order of the Tribunal dated 14 September 2018 the claimant was ordered to comply fully with that Order dated 20 June 2018, and that unless she did so by 12 noon on 19 September 2018 her claims would be dismissed under Rule 38. The Claimant has failed to comply with that Order; and 3. Accordingly, the claimant’s claims stand dismissed; and 4. The hearing listed on 20 September 2018 is vacated. ________________________
Between
Miss K O’CallaghanClaimantMiss M Da Silva (R1) The Anchor (Bideford) Ltd (R2) Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (R3)Respondent
Before
Employment Judge KolankoDate 20 June 2018

JUDGMENT

The complaint that the claimant was unfairly dismissed is struck out.

REASONS

[2]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a claimant to have not less than two years service to make an unfair dismissal complaint.[3]The claimant was employed by the respondent for less than two years.[4]Therefore the claimant is not entitled to bring such a complaint.[5]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out.[6]Accordingly, the complaint of unfair dismissal is struck out. The claimant’s other complaints are not affected by this judgment. Employment Judge Kolanko Date: 20 June 2018[1]By Order of the Tribunal dated 20 June 2018 the claimant was ordered to provide further information relating to her claims, and failed to do so; and[2]By subsequent Order of the Tribunal dated 14 September 2018 the claimant was ordered to comply fully with that Order dated 20 June 2018, and that unless she did so by 12 noon on 19 September 2018 her claims would be dismissed under Rule 38. The Claimant has failed to comply with that Order; and[3]Accordingly, the claimant’s claims stand dismissed; and[4]The hearing listed on 20 September 2018 is vacated.